Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

philosophical and political idealism ...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
after thousands of years of thinking ...does it actualy amount to much?
does any of it actualy take into account the individual?

SOMEONE HAs to be in charge ...someone has to make the decisions.
be it blagsta or matadore ...aladdin or kentish ...

how the hell do any of you propose that your ideals can ever happen without upsetting ...ME?

freedom is talked about a great deal in this place but ...you all see a need to restrict what i wish to do ...

so how do we get freedom in an organised society?
«134567…10

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Freedom in an organised society?

    Are you a socialist?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Are you a socialist?
    no i'm a disilusionist.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    morrocan roll wrote:
    so how do we get freedom in an organised society?
    As a society, we broadly agree that freedom is not absolute. For example, we are not free to kill people who cut us up in traffic (though I sometimes wish we could).

    We organise our society based on electing representatives from our area who all meet together at a central point and decide amongst each other, taking on advice from experts and lay people, how best to organise ourselves.

    The amount of freedom is decided by those with the power to enforce the limitations of our freedom (usually the government, though it could be argued that others such as suicide bombers or gangs of thugs do it by force or threat thereof). We therefore must debate and decide which freedoms we allow and which we restrict. Our form of democracy is the best and most stable we have come up with so far.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no i'm a disilusionist.

    Love it. :thumb:
    how the hell do any of you propose that your ideals can ever happen without upsetting ...ME?

    Easy, I can't.

    That's why you are best off making as many decisions about yourself as you can, and I am about me. Where our interests meet, we can agree and work together, where they don't we have to agree to disagree and as long as we don't pick up weapons, there it ends.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rolly...try reading some of Nieztches' work, he basically explains how some people have a desire for reaching the top and gaining control, i think this is one of his arguments that fits nicely with how the world works, take 10 boys, 5 a side football match, there'll always be someone willing to be the captain, and they'll get that role...it's the same with the world today...I know it's frustrating being "another brick in the wall" but we are individuals and we're more human than any of those faceless beaurocrats ever will so let the cat have his ball, we'll always be better so thats all that matters in my heart. :thumb:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    morrocan roll wrote:
    SOMEONE HAs to be in charge ...someone has to make the decisions.

    why?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    why?

    Well I know you're going to disagree with this but there is historical evidence from basically the beginning of human civilisation a natural desire for power and control in humans.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is just as much evidence for co-operation.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    There is just as much evidence for co-operation.

    Co-operation happens everywhere though in everyday situations. I doubt there has every been global co-operation though in a political and economical system.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You do need leadership, Blagsta.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You might do Mat. I don't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You might do Mat. I don't.

    No one needs leadership but there's always someone willing to be a leader, to create a system based on a leadership ideal.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You might do Mat. I don't

    No, you are just unwilling to lead.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol:

    You're never gonna know why I'm laughing at you Mat :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, cos im not a smack-head.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear Mat you are a prick aren't you. Forever getting the wrong end of the stick. :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Drop the smack, Blagsta - it does you no favours at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *bangs up a £10 bag into eyeball*
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    The Matadore wrote:
    You do need leadership, Blagsta.

    Why? I fail to see any reason. Mayb the week need leading. Are you so weak you cannot fight the urge to bad things without a law enforcer? A state?

    We all could. It is in our best interests not to commit crimes.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    It is in our best interests not to commit crimes.
    How so?

    And what is a "crime" in a leaderless society?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All human interaction has someone in charge of it. The difference between say, a playground, and a monarchy is that the monarchy is stale, fixed and prone to Prince Charles.

    The playground's leaders are chosen in context, on the fly and are instantly replacable.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Kentish wrote:
    How so?

    And what is a "crime" in a leaderless society?

    It is simple language to make it easier to understand. Crime as such would not exist... but it is in peoples best interests to inetract well, and co-opperate. We can work better together and achieve more this way.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    why?
    thats a trick question right?

    you seem to make your judgements about human interaction on a hanful of individuals when in reality we are talking thousands ...millions ...billions even.

    so obviously someone has to make the final decisions ...

    your cosy world of everyone being cooperative is actualy impossible.
    so ...someone ...wether an individual or a group ...has to take resonsibility ...has to make the decisions which effect us all ...and thats where every system going falls down ...cos being the one or the group who makes those decisions means ...power in the hands of the few.
    theres no getting away from it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why? I fail to see any reason

    Because anarchism doesnt work.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think there needs to be some sort of leader, in a state of nature there is nothing to stop one man killing another just because they want to same resources. (according to Hobbes) Furthermore there needs to be some sort of leader, otherwise how will there be welfare? It's not as if those who are "rich" in whatever way be it money, resources or whatnot are just going to give up their resources to those less well off. This is one of the reasons why Locke advocates a civil government, by the consent of the people.

    Guess who's been studying political theory ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hobbes is a twat
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    turlough wrote:
    Hobbes is a twat
    :lol: Was? He's dead mate.

    So... why... back in the days of Cavemen, and before any centralised leadership... did people co-opperate? We would not have gotten this far as we have unless people just got along within groups, and worked together. People work together and are "nice" to each other in times when it does pay not to be.

    See men in war - run back into the firing line to help their fellows out who have been injured. In a natural disaster, people help each other when one in struggling. It happens all the time, in situations, where, any self-centered person would see the opposite action as the one to be taken.

    No-one ORDERS them to do it. They just chose to do it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    :lol: Was? He's dead mate.

    So... why... back in the days of Cavemen, and before any centralised leadership... did people co-opperate? We would not have gotten this far as we have unless people just got along within groups, and worked together. People work together and are "nice" to each other in times when it does pay not to be.

    See men in war - run back into the firing line to help their fellows out who have been injured. In a natural disaster, people help each other when one in struggling. It happens all the time, in situations, where, any self-centered person would see the opposite action as the one to be taken.

    No-one ORDERS them to do it. They just chose to do it.

    But soldiers who run back to help pull thier comrades out of danger at the risk of their own lives get medals - because it is rare. And soldiers certainly are told what to do and organised - thats why there are officers and NCOs.

    Now people aren't always self centred, but there not naturally altruristic either.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lions have no true leaders either.

    WHy? Because they are so fucking damgerous, it's not worth doing all the dominance behaviour that you find in primates. When there is a tussle, one lion dies almost invariably.

    It's the same with humans. Even one of us in a wheelchair is capable of coming up with a plan to kill or injure the strongest man in the world.
    in a state of nature there is nothing to stop one man killing another just because they want to same resources.
    It's not as if those who are "rich" in whatever way be it money, resources or whatnot are just going to give up their resources to those less well off.

    Point one and two don't seem to go together very well.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Matadore wrote:
    Because anarchism doesnt work.

    You don't even know what anarchism is Mat.
Sign In or Register to comment.